Champion

Correct me if I'm wrong [I probably am], but it was my understanding that Humanism contends that people follow moral codes that benefit society because when society is orderly all benefit. I don't pee on the seat in an airport restroom and I expect [more like hope] others will show me the same courtesy. In the end everyone get's a cleaner bathroom. But where do I gain by letting the dude next to me get the parachute? Why should I care if society is better off if I'm going to be dead?

JamesBannon

Firstly, humanism does not contend that at all. It contends that humans base moral decisions on empathy, not necessarily on what "best benefits society". If humans did this then society would ultimately benefit but that is very different from saying that society is the prime source of moral decision-making in the first place.

BTW: If you don't play the game, you would be the first out of the aeroplane without the parachute. You would simply be thrown out.

MollyMac

No, I don't think Humanism 'contends' this. Humanists argue that we have a responsibility to ourselves, each other and future generations to try to live happy and fulfilling lives and help others do the same and to preserve the planet.
Yes, following the Golden Rule is fundamental to people getting along.

You don't. In some situations there will inevitably be losers - that is why I say that the criteria for making the decision would be based on the number of people who gain compare to the number who lose. The bottom line is 'what action would benefit the greatest number of people?'

You don't have to care but, if you don't, you're probably not a humanist. This isn't to suggest that any of us would be happy or even willing to draw the short straw and that we wouldn't all be desperately making the case for our own survival when it came to it. We're all human, after all. But you asked for the humanist take on a moral dilemma and I've tried to explain what I think the humanist take would or should be.

His Noodly Appendage

Humanism is an ethical philosophy.

The question of subjectivity vs objectivity is a meta-ethical one - humanism is not affected by the answer in the slightest.

Also, humanism makes no inherent claims to rationality. It just says "Altruism FTW", as an axiom. Some individuals might claim to have reasoned their way into that position; a subset of them claim that it is possible to do so in every case.

They're a small and weird minority, though - and far closer to moral objectivists than the subjectivism you're talking about.

Champion

"Humanism is an ethical philosophy.

The question of subjectivity vs objectivity is a meta-ethical one - humanism is not affected by the answer in the slightest."

Thanks HNA that clears things up alot.

"Also, humanism makes no inherent claims to rationality. It just says "Altruism FTW", as an axiom. Some individuals might claim to have reasoned their way into that position; a subset of them claim that it is possible to do so in every case."

Do humanists believe that some of their morals are irrational or do they merely believe that it is impossible to know for sure?

His Noodly Appendage

I don't think "irrational" really applies.

Would it be rational or irrational for my name to be "Joe"?

espritch

The men who gave up their places on the life boats were a product of their society. Their society had certain expectations about their behavior. They faced two bad choices. One was to die. The other was to lose face and be branded a coward. Some people today may see "Death before dishonor" as a rather quaint relic of a different age, but the idea had real currency then. To lose face could be seen as a fate worse than death.

There is also Darwinian logic to it. In a culture where reputation and status are closely linked, protecting your reputation is a way of protecting your status, and status (in any society) is one of the surest ways to get laid and pass on your genes.

I imagine that in this age of "greed is good" and "any publicity is good publicity", the outcome of a Titanic type disaster might be quite different.

Champion

It is certainly rational to have a name. Unless your name is something your society has a problem with ["dumbfart"]. It isn't irrational or rational to be named Joe since in the end it doesn't matter. But decisions we make do matter. And decisions we make can be deemed rational or irrational.

I agree with you here.

I don't agree with what you said here. I think it is foolish to believe that the only thing keeping them on the boat was the fear of what "the Andersons" would think. They could have told their friends and family any number of lies about how they survived. Many of the lifeboats that left the Titanic early did have men on them because the need to evacuate the ship did not appear to be as dire as it actually was. They could have claimed to have been on one of those such vessels.

No, I think they stayed on the boats not because of what society would have said but because of what their consciences said when they stared at the women and children around them.

I quite agree.

espritch

I think you may be underestimating the power of "what the Andersons would think". You are also neglecting that there would have been others in the lifeboats to witness their actions.

I agree that their conscience played a big role in their actions. But I think we disagree on just what conscience is. In WWII, young Germans not only killed a lot of Jews, Gypsies, and others they considered inferior, they often took pride in doing so. One German soldier even sent a picture to his own mother of himself shooting a Jewish woman. So why didn't his conscience bother him? Because his conscience was a product of his society. The Nazis began a propaganda campaign to demonize the Jews long before they started killing them. By the time the killing began, the culture had been deeply permeated with the idea that Jews were evil and undeserving of human compassion.

My brother has a book about Imperial Japan. On the front cover is a picture of a smiling Japanese soldier holding up the severed head of a Chinese captive he has just beheaded. Why didn't his conscience bother him? Because Japanese culture held to the notion that death in battle was glorious and surrender was dishonorable. And a man without honor wasn't fit to live.

Conscience is, for the most part, the internalization of the norms and expectations of one's society (not to be confused with actual ethics).

His Noodly Appendage

You are conflating morals with actions.

It is rational to do X if X advances an assumed goal.

It is irrational to do X if X confounds an assumed goal.

It is neither rational nor irrational, (as you point out above) to do X if X neither advances nor confounds any assumed goal.

Holding a set of morals equates to defining a set of goals.

As such, they really can't be either, for any argument either way would necessarily be circular.